Jump to content

Hx Parking/gladstones CCJ - Exceeded 1hrs Free - McDonald's Alma Leisure Park Chesterfield CCJ issued thanks to useless parking fines ltd - continued.

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Have you still got their WS for last years hearing. If so please post it up so we can have a laugh and advise you how to respond. it sounds as if they want to clobber you for more money this time round. They have more chance winning the Grand National without a horse than getting more money even if they did win which seems to be more unlikely than they think.


For a start their PCN does not comply with the Act so they cannot transfer the debt from the driver to you the keeper. And it is much more difficult to win when the driver is not known-they cannot assume in Law that the driver and the keeper are the same person.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting their WS. It appears that they are pursuing you as the keeper  [re their point 19]. That is great for you as their NotIce to keeper is not compliant for two reasons. 

1] they have used the cameras recording your arrival and exit as the period of parking as required in PoFA. However the new Act clarifies that the ANPR times are not the same as the parking period which is when your car comes to rest in a parking bay which can sometimes be several minutes after arrival. Likewise the period of parking ends when you leave the parking bay not when you exit the carpark. {the fact that you might still have exceeded their time is irrelevant since it is the period of parking that is incorrect thus negating their ability to pursue you as the driver.


They then compound it by getting a second thing wrong


2] In Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] they have missed out some key words (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)


The sign at the entrance does not advise that there is only 1 hour parking after midnight so as not all their T&Cs are present at the entrance  there is no contract formed merely the sign offers an invitation to treat.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19, they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts. 


First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.


The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.


Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.


The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid. 


PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.


They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."


  So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."


Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to make a couple of comments on their Ws.

First as Dave says the PCN is not PoFA compliant. The PCN has to include the period of parking which is obviously not the arrival and leaving times on the ANPR cameras. Several minutes must elapse between finding a parking spot and then leaving the parking spot and getting to the exit.  Therefore the keeper cannot be held responsible for the alleged debt by the driver. And HX should be put to strict proof that the driver and the keeper are the same.

Second this could prove difficult for them since in the contract  [s8 Declaration ]they are unable to distinguish whether the Client is the land owner, the Legal occupier or the managing agent  in the signed declaration despite the fact that they have a signed  contract signed by someone not in their presence  4 days later whose name  has been redacted. This really is not good enough to qualify as a valid contract as there is only a signature without naming the company they are working for as well as only being a manager, not a director. So we need strict proof of the company  who signed as the Client and if it was not Canada Life then we need strict proof that the signee had permission to sign on behalf of CL.


third the Entrance sign indicates that the T&Cs are inside the car park so it cannot said to offer a contract, just an offer to treat.

Fourth [though Dave may have covered this] the contract allows HX tth right to recover parking charges but stops short of permitting them to pursue through the Court which usually occurs in contracts relating to parking.


Fifth the contract is governed by the law of England and Wales so their PCN is unlawful since it contains a notification that extra charges of £160 can be charged. This is contra to the law yet permitted by the ISC. As the PCN is an unlawful instrument it follows that any charges from the PCN cannot be permitted and the case should not have been issued.


Sixth put the ANPR cameras to strict proof of their accuracy with GMT on the day of the alleged offence .


That's all I can see at the moment. Hopefully Ethel Street will confirm the position on the lawfulness of the added charges included in the PCN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Hx Parking/gladstones CCJ - Exceeded 1hrs Free - McDonald's Alma Leisure Park Chesterfield CCJ issued thanks to useless parking fines ltd - continued.

I am wondering if it is better not to mention the fact that their NTK is non compliant. First put them to strict proof that they are pursuing you as the keeper as they say in their WS .point 38. [well done by the way for not divulging who was driving in your appeal]. Then once they have stated that they are pursuing you as the keeper, reveal in Court that the PCN is non compliant. Case over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I asked for strict proof  of the ANPR accuracy is that the scrotes are not incapable of running their clock on the cameras some minutes fast so that more cars can get caught up only being allowed there for one hour when had the clocks not been fast, they would have had five hours leeway and so your alleged breach would not have happened.  Important to see their proof and if they cannot provide it on the day you visited you can say that you are sure that you arrived in time so as not to incur charges.


The other thing is their entrance sign. If it does not say that should you breach any of their terms you have to pay £100, then the contract that they offered you differs from the one in the car park which states that breaches are subject to a £100 charge  even if you had been able to see it. So when they have two different offers on show, in Law you are permitted to accept the one that is most favourable to you.

They have made you an offer to treat, not formed a contract  with you at the entrance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...